From Microformats Wiki
Revision as of 22:09, 19 March 2007 by Tantek (talk | contribs) (Reverted edit of AndyMabbett, changed back to last version by Phae)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Andy Mabbett was moderated (rather than banned for a week) on 2007-01-04 on the microformats mailing lists at the time for both his frequent/excessive off-topic posts, and his ignoring of several warnings from admins to please stop doing so (see microformats-discuss archives for details). Ernie P. (a longstanding overwhelmingly positive contributor to the community) has proposed unmoderating Andy at this point, 2007-03-19. Please add your opinion at the end:

  • +1 Ernie P.
  • +1 David Janes
  • +1 Nic James Ferrier
  • +1 Tantek
  • +1 Scott Reynen
  • +1 Steve Ganz
  • +1 Joe Andrieu
  • +1 M. Jackson Wilkinson
  • +1 BenWest
  • +1 Chris Foote (Spike)
  • ... add your opinion (+1 unmoderate, 0 no opinion, -1 keep moderated) and your name


  • I'm glad to see this issue getting traction. However, I'm curious why Ernie's standing in the community is relevant to the issue of unmoderating Andy. Tantek, could you explain why that has been presented as an integral part of this decision making process? Clearly, personal clout always shapes one's ability to influence the community; however, I doubt it should be officially incorporated in these "proceedings". Shouldn't every member of the community have an equal hearing under whatever governance procedures we use?

JoeAndrieu 09:38, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)

Tantek also said: "Ernie, as someone who has made overwhelmingly positive contributions to the microformats community, IMHO the occasional OT post is reasonable'".
  • I believe the statement was added to give context to the appealing member of the community. i.e. Ernie is a long standing, good contributor, as opposed to someone new who has no experience with this particular community or someone who has had little or no interaction with the community until now, and also negates it being a personal statement (rather he is interested in community as a whole, instead of being a friend of the Andy and having a personal goal, for example). Basically, he is a person with a certain amount of credibility and trustworthiness. Phae 10:25, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
  • Agreed, Phae, Ernie is such a person and that is Tantek's point. But should one need to be a "friend of the court" to bring an action? That practice reinforces a culture of privilege that has historically proven antithetical to transparency and equality, both characteristics of good governance, IMO. It is great to see the powers-that-be responding to Ernie's request. It is also a bit frustrating that only those deemed meritorious by the peerage can call forth due process and that Andy's own efforts to speak on his behalf--referencing my previous request to do the same--were summarily dismissed by Tantek because they were "adversarial." Any robust governance should, IMO, work independent of privilege and be capable of addressing adversarial situations without arbitrary limits on the speech of those whose liberties are under challenge.--JoeAndrieu 14:18, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)
    • Point taken and appreciated, but this is the first incident to come to this kind of a situation where someone else has felt the need to step in, and just happened to also involve someone that is felt to be a member of good standing. I'd like to hope that if another member of the community had felt a similar way and had chosen to bring it up, that it would also have been dealt with in this open manner (and I'm sure this incident will be brought up in the future). Hopefully this incident will be a good test case to better structure future interactions with administration. I can't personally comment on Andy's own appeals. Phae 14:45, 19 Mar 2007 (PDT)